AE MCP Bridge

by justajazz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

ae_add_markers

Add one or many markers to a layer or composition, with all changes grouped into a single undo step.

Instructions

Add one or many markers to a layer, or to the composition when layer is omitted. One undo step.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "markers": "<markers>"
    },
    "name": "ae_add_markers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comp`	No	Composition name or numeric item id. Omit to use the active composition.
`layer`	No	Layer name or index. Omit for composition markers.
`markers`	Yes	[{ time, comment?, duration?, label? (0..16), chapter?, url? }]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'One undo step' is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure about atomicity for a mutation tool. It stops there, however: no error behavior for invalid layers, no statement of what is returned (e.g. marker identifiers), and no indication of whether existing markers are affected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, fully front-loaded, with the scope rule stated before the undo note. Nothing redundant and nothing that fails to earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential branching and the undo grouping. The only gap is what an agent can expect back after a successful add, which is minor given the low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents comp, layer, and the marker object fields, making the baseline 3. The description only restates the layer-omission rule and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (markers) plus the scope branching: layer when provided, composition when layer is omitted. No sibling in the provided list handles markers, so differentiation is not required and the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for the layer-vs-composition choice ('or to the composition when layer is omitted'), which is the one real usage decision here. It names no alternatives, but no competing sibling exists, so there is nothing more to route against.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.